Social-Network Enabled Review System With Social Distance Based Syndication

ABSTRACT

The embodiments of the present system include a review engine that is connected to support modules and databases that receive, store, and retrieve reviews, based upon the subject and the users&#39; relationship to the authors of the reviews. The review engine comprises a social network engine, a rate and rank engine, a credentials engine and a privacy engine. These engines allow reviews to be sorted, filtered and ordered in terms of relevance when presented to the user. Numerous methods are also provided by the system that receive, store and retrieve reviews.

RELATED APPLICATIONS

This patent application is a continuation of U.S. patent applicationSer. No. 11/022,282, filed Dec. 23, 2004, entitled, “VENDOR-DRIVEN,SOCIAL-NETWORK ENABLED REVIEW SYSTEM WITH FLEXIBLE SYNDICATION”; U.S.patent application Ser. No. 11/022,567, filed Dec. 23, 2004, entitled,“VENDOR-DRIVEN, SOCIAL-NETWORK ENABLED REVIEW COLLECTION SYSTEM”; and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/022,720, filed Dec. 23, 2004,entitled, “VENDOR-DRIVEN, SOCIAL-NETWORK ENABLED REVIEW SYNDICATIONSYSTEM,” all of which are incorporated herein by reference.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention is related to receiving and storing reviews, andmore particularly to fully integrating a social network with a reviewsystem to provide trusted reviews based on social network connections.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

A variety of methods exist today that allow consumers to write reviewsof books, products, merchants, restaurants, and other topics. Forexample, Amazon. com® allows customers to write reviews of productspurchased from Amazon®. EBay. com® asks sellers and buyers to revieweach other, not on the actual product transacted, but on the quality ofthe transaction itself. Epinions. com®, Shopping. com®, and Bizrate.com® focus on providing reviews of products and merchants to potentialconsumers, but do so as a shopping portal. Other sites that focus onspecific verticals, such as DiamondReview. com™, provide reviews onlywithin the diamond jewelry industry.

For a buying consumer, reviews can be an important part of the purchasedecision for a given product or service. However, the state of reviewsfound on the Internet today is such that many of the reviews cannot befully trusted. Many reviews are written by sellers (or person'saffiliated with sellers) that falsely pose as past buyers, and aretherefore biased in favor of the seller. Since it is at best difficult,and usually impossible, to tell the good reviews from the biasedreviews, the entire notion of using reviews to make a purchase decisionbecomes less useful than it could be. Therefore there is no existingsystem that provides trusted relevant reviews to consumers.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

A system is provided that creates an optimal balance among the interestsof vendors, buyers, and review-providers. The system can be used for anytype of review, whether it is a review for a product, a service, aperson, a work of art, or any other subject for which writing a reviewmight be applicable and desired. The system is socially enabled as itconsiders each reader's social relationship relative to the author ofeach review (hereinafter called “user-author”), and considers suchrelationship when presenting the reviews to the (hereinafter called“requesting user”). The system is also designed to allow trueuser-friendly solicitation of reviews by any merchant or other solicitorof reviews (hereinafter also called “subject-owners”). Furthermore, thesystem is designed to allow the subject-owners of any review tosyndicate or broadcast their reviews through third parties, in auser-friendly and unrestricted fashion, but in a manner that preservesthe legitimacy and authenticity of the review. Finally, the system isdesigned to address concerns about privacy and authenticity relative touser-authors and requesting users.

Embodiments of the present system include a review engine that isconnected to support modules and databases that receive, store andretrieve reviews based upon the subject and the requesting users'relationship to the user-authors of the reviews. The review enginecomprises a social network engine, a rate and rank engine, a credentialsengine and a privacy engine. These engines allow reviews to be sorted,filtered and ordered when presented to the requesting user.

Numerous exemplary methods are also provided that include the receptionand delivery of reviews to and from users of the system. The methods ofproviding reviews include allowing a requesting user to search forreviews within the system and methods of automatically providing reviewsbased on a requesting user's visit to a website.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a diagram of one embodiment of the present review system;

FIG. 2 is a diagram of another embodiment of the review system of thepresent invention;

FIG. 3 is a diagram of another embodiment of the review system of thepresent invention;

FIG. 4 is a diagram illustrating exemplary data stored in the reviewsystem of one embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 5 is a diagram illustrating an exemplary social network and socialdistances that may be employed in the present invention;

FIG. 6 is a flow diagram illustrating an exemplary process of providingreviews in one embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 7 is a flow diagram illustrating an exemplary process obtainingreviews in one embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating a locator data structure employed in anembodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 9 is a diagram illustrating exemplary information flow within anembodiment of the present review system;

FIG. 10 is another diagram illustrating exemplary information flowwithin an embodiment of the present review system;

FIG. 11 is an example of data and reviews provided by an embodiment ofthe review system;

FIG. 12 is a diagram illustrating exemplary information flow within anembodiment of the present review system;

FIG. 13 is an example of data and reviews provided by an embodiment ofthe review system;

FIG. 14 is a diagram of an exemplary computer network environment thatemploys embodiments of the review system; and

FIG. 15 is a diagram of an exemplary computer system that enacts andenables the embodiment of the review system.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

A system is provided that creates an optimal balance among the interestsof vendors, buyers, and review-providers. The system can be used for anytype of review, whether it is a review for a product, a service, aperson, a work of art, or any other subject for which writing a reviewmight be applicable and desired. The system is socially enabled as itconsiders each requesting user's social relationship relative to theuser-author of each review, and considers such relationship whenpresenting the reviews to the requesting user. The system is alsodesigned to allow true user-friendly solicitation of reviews by anysubject-owner. Furthermore, the system is designed to allow thesubject-owners of any review to syndicate or broadcast their reviewsthrough third parties, in a user-friendly and unrestricted fashion, butin a manner that preserves the legitimacy and authenticity of thereview. Finally, the system is designed to address concerns aboutprivacy and authenticity relative to user-authors and requesting users.The features, methods and structures of the exemplary review system areshown and described with reference to FIGS. 1-15.

FIG. 1 shows an exemplary embodiment of the present system 10 thatprovides a broad platform for many different types of reviews. Reviewscan be written about many different “subjects.” A “subject” can be anonline merchant (including a seller on an auction site), an offlinemerchant, a service (contractors, accountants, lawyers, doctors,classes, seminars, landlords, brokers), a product (movies, books, CDs,software, games, appliances), a person (as a potential romantic date, apotential friend, a potential business partnership, a potentialemployee, chat buddies, etc. ), an employer, a buyer (to assess creditworthiness or other buyer attributes in a qualitative way), etc.

A requesting user interacts with the exemplary review system 10 throughthe delivery channels 50. The specific details of an exemplary userinterface that communicate through the delivery channels 50 are shown ingreater detail in FIG. 15. The review system 10 contains a group ofsupport modules 12 that include a subject control panel 14, alocator/verifier/incentive engine 16, a “was this review helpful?”engine 18, a “super reviewer” status engine 20, a category and numericalranking criteria manager 22 and a social linker user control panel, usersignup 24. Connected to the support modules 12 are a subject database26, a user reviews database 28, and a users and friends database 30.Also connected to the databases are a reviews subset selector module 32,a socially-weighted threaded discussions module 34 and a self-profilemodule 36 and an anonymous contact module 48. These modules access andaugment the data in the various databases to obtain the necessaryinformation required by the engines of the review system 10 assubsequently described.

The system review engine 38 is comprised of a social network engine 40,a rate and rank engine 42, a credentials engine 44, and a privacy engine46. In one embodiment, the system engine 38 receives and transmitssignals to and from the delivery channels 50. The engines 40, 42, 44, 46can be connected via data busses in a conventional manner, or in anyother convenient manner known to those skilled in the art. The signalsfrom the delivery channels include the requesting user's identity (ifknown) and the subjects and categories of input. The rate and rankengine 42 provides the calculations regarding social distance and finalrankings of reviews provided to the requesting user.

A review may be requested through the channels 50. If a review isrequested for a given subject, it is first processed by the reviewsubset selector module 32. This module directs the request to theappropriate database and retrieves the subset of reviews relevant to thesubject. In addition to the request for a review, the requesting userinformation is also input into the system. The user ID information goesdirectly into the review engine 38. The review engine 38 comprised ofthe social network engine 40, the rate and rank engine 42, thecredentials engine 44, and the privacy engine 46 work to provide anordered list of reviews based on the stored reviews relating to thesubject as ordered by a social distance as calculated in the reviewengine 38. The support modules 12 provide further inputs and informationthat allow the engine 38 to provide the most pertinent informationregarding each user request.

One skilled in the art will understand that one particular configurationof review engine 38 is directed toward hardware modules. Such a one willalso understand that equivalent functionality can be implemented by ageneral purpose computer executing programmed instructions.

A review can also be received and stored in a similar manner. A user maycompose a review of a product sold on a website and wish to enter thisreview into the system (henceforth, the user becomes a user-author). Thereview would be accepted into the system 10 through thelocator/verifier/incentive engine 16. The review is then directed to andstored in the appropriate database. The user-author information is alsoobtained and stored so a determination and calculation of socialdistance between a requesting user and the user-author may be obtained.The system 10 employs locator data structures subsequently described inorder to process the reviews. In this manner, the system 10 processesreviews based on the subject, the user-author, and the requesting user'srelationship to the user-author.

The system 10 can be used to display reviews publicly, a likely scenariofor an ecommerce vendor. It can also capture reviews publicly, but notmake them available to the public (similar to a typical suggestion box,where members of the public can submit suggestions privately to amerchant). Embodiments of the present system 10 can also be usedstrictly within an organization, with tightly controlled authorship andviewing rights managed by the privacy engine 46, such as soliciting360-degree feedback of one employee to another. It can also be used toselectively capture and selectively disclose reviews, such as might beused by an employee to capture all employer references in a way that isvalidated by a third party (the review-provider), can live forever intime, and can be re-used at will without having to re-contact theprovider of the reference. In a similar manner, the present system 10can be used by applicants to academic programs, such as business or lawschool, where a reference is typically required. The present inventiontherefore maps a user's personal social network to products, services,vendors, buyers, sellers, potential business partnerships, and evenpotential romantic encounters that the user might be contemplating.

FIG. 2 shows an exemplary embodiment of a multi-channel formatsyndication system used in the review system 10. The system 52 in thisexample contains a plurality of databases such as a subject database 54,a user reviews database 56, a users (authors of user reviews) database58, and a users and friends database 60. Connected to these databases ismodule 62 that selects reviews, sorts and adds privacy features basedpartially on social distance between a user-author and a requestinguser. Also included in the system 52 are modules 64 that appliessyndication channel specific filtering of reviews and module 66 thatapplies syndication channel specific formatting. Module 66 is connectedto multiple channels 68 for communication. The types of channel specificfiltering and formatting are determined by the type of electronicdelivery system employed as subsequently described.

FIG. 3 illustrates an exemplary review submission system 70 that employsa locator as would be used with the review system of FIG. 1. A locatorcode is submitted by a customer into the system via lookup locator andsubject module 72. Module 72 accesses locators database 78 andreferences subjects database 80 (an exemplary record of database 78 isshown in FIG. 8). In module 74 the review forms are presented based onthe locator instructions and the results are stored in user reviewsdatabase 82. Module 76 requests that the user-author (formerly just acustomer) register or sign in, and then requests that the user-authorsubmit information used to create a social network. Module 76 accessesuser database 84 and friends database 86. Using this embodiment, auser-author's profile and social network are entered for furtherprocessing within the system 10. The locators used in the present system10 connect customers to subjects so that an almost instantaneousconnection between customers and subjects may be obtained in order toprovide review forms to a customer. The features and methods provided byFIGS. 1-3 are described below.

Once a user's social network is provided to the review-provider system10, the review-provider maps that user's social network to other users'social networks, creating a tree-like structure, each node of the treerepresenting a user, and every connection of nodes representing a degreeof separation. The “social distance” between any two users is equal tothe shortest path between the two users in such a tree.

An additional overlay to the social network is to request each user todescribe the relationship with each “friend” submitted to the network.For example, if the user describes person A as a “spouse” and person Bas a “co-worker,” there is a clear hierarchy of trust despite anotherwise equal “social distance.” Furthermore, such relationships canenable otherwise impossible privacy options that allow the user-authorsto share reviews with requesting users that are multiple degrees ofseparation away, yet not breach the user-author's actual identity (assubsequently described).

The present embodiments of the system 10 map the concept of a socialnetwork into the notion of reviews. The system 10 offers reviews byfriends, by friends of friends (2 degrees of separation), by friends offriends of friends (3 degrees of separation), and so on, in addition toany reviews offered by recognized experts and by strangers. Wheneverreviews are presented to a requesting user via the review engine 38, thereviews can be sorted based on the “social distance” between theuser-author and the requesting user. The “social distance,” aspreviously described, is the number of degrees of separation between theuser-author and the requesting user, based on the requesting user'sand/or the user-author's social networks.

A social network can be implemented in the system 10 as described abovewith two data structures 88 as shown in FIG. 4. The data structures 88can be implemented as a memory array, as an SQL table, or any otherpractical method. The first data structure consists of a user table 90,which contains a unique userID number 94 for each user of thereview-provider system, as well as any additional information 96, suchas name, email address, or any other appropriate and relevantregistration information. The second data structure consists of afriends table 92, which contains pairs of userID numbers 98 andfriend-userID numbers 100, and any other relevant information 102 suchas relationship, names, etc. Each pair of userID numbers 98 and 100consists of two users who have established a link as a “friend” in thesocial network. Therefore, if a pair consists of (1,2), representinguserID #1 and userID #2, this represents 1 degree of separation betweenuserID #1 and userID #2.

A social network can be formed from any number of unique ornearly-unique identifiers to users, such as phone numbers, socialsecurity numbers, or email addresses. Some of these identifiers can beused in combination, or in combination with secondary identifiers suchas name and address. When the user registers to the review-providersystem 10 (as in FIG. 3), the user is given the opportunity to submittheir social network, in the form of a list of unique or nearly-uniqueidentifiers to other users whom the user considers to be a friend. Thisis accomplished by asking the user to manually enter information such asemail addresses, or can be automated by retrieving a user's contactinformation from any number of existing repositories such as the contactlist on the user's email/contact software (such as Microsoft Outlook® orPalm Desktop™), online email provider (such as Yahoo Mail), other device(such as a cellular phone or PDA containing such information), orprovided in metadata format such as FOAF (http://www. foaf-project.org).

A social network can be augmented by capturing the relationship betweenusers and groups of users. For example, if a user works at a particularcompany, she will have a slightly higher amount of trust for a co-workerthan she would a complete stranger. This is true even if there is noformal social connection between her friends and the co-worker's friends(i.e. “infinite” degrees of separation). The same assertion can be madefor users who study at the same university or school, are members of thesame alumni network, go to the same church, attend the same socialevents, pursue the same hobbies, are members of the same professional orleisure club, etc. The invention allows users to add groups of people asfriends in the social network. The group of people is identified inaggregate as a single company, university, or any other appropriateidentifier.

Multiple pairs 98 and 100 are combined in a tree-like structure toestablish a given user's social network, as shown in FIG. 5 for thesample data set shown in FIG. 4. FIG. 5 shows an exemplary tree-likedata structure 104, along with the sample social distances 106, as shownin the tree 104. In this example user 1 is friends with users 2 and 3.User 2 has friends 4, 15, 19 and 5. User 4 has friend 27, while user 5has friend 23. User 8 is friends with 23 and 25. The social distances106 refer to the number of connecting lines between users. For example,to connect user 15 to 23, three connecting lines must be made, thereforethe social distance is three.

Using the exemplary social network information as above, whenever arequesting user requests reviews for a given subject, the computerreview system 10 executes an exemplary process as shown in FIG. 6. Afterstarting, the process enacts step 110 where a requesting user requestsreviews for a given subject. All reviews pertaining to the given subject(excepting those that may be filtered as disclosed later) are selectedin step 112. In step 114 it is determined if the requesting user isknown and signed in. If the requesting user is registered and signed in,the requesting user's userID becomes available to the review-provider aspart of the query, either through a cookie or any other means, and the“social distance” of each selected review's user-author is calculated instep 116 with respect to the requesting user. The reviews are displayedin sorted order and can use privacy settings that include “socialdistance” in step 118. If the requesting user's userID cannot bedetermined, step 120 is enacted where the reviews are displayed insorted order and can use privacy settings that do not include “socialdistance.” It is noted that for other embodiments of this process 108,particularly with regard to the sequence (for example, the retrieval andreviews and the computation of “social distance” can occur nearlysimultaneously), there are many ways that the “social distance” can beused to influence the sort order and/or the privacy settings of thereviews.

Another feature and embodiment of the invention is the connection ofthreaded discussions to the reviews (also known as “message forums”).Module 34 in FIG. 1 includes messages or entire threads of messages inthe system 10, so when the requesting user requests a review on asubject, the likelihood that the requesting user will find a friend whohas commented on the subject will increase. When this happens, an entiremessage thread (as subsequently described) can be considered to be ofthe same “social distance” as the user-author of the message within thethread (as subsequently described) with the smallest “social distance”to the requesting user, thus bringing additional trusted information tothe requesting user.

It is possible to tightly integrate a message forum 34 to the reviewsystem 10. In such an implementation, the initial review would serve asthe initial message in a “thread” of messages. Multiple users would beable to post and reply to the thread, thereby adding many messages andcomments to the initial review. The subject-owner about whom the reviewis written would, in some cases, be able to control whether anintegrated message forum is permitted for their reviews, and which usersmay post on such a forum (e.g., only the subject-owner, only thesubject-owner plus user-author of the review, only registered users,everyone at large, etc. ). A “social distance” can be computed betweenthe user-author of each message in the thread and the requesting user,and the reviews and comments can be provided in sorted order basedpartly on the “social distance.”

Embodiments of the present invention therefore provide a search functionwhere the documents (e.g., web pages, PDF files, etc. ) would be sortedby relevance based on keywords (well known in the art), other metrics(such as Google's PageRank method), as well as by the “social distance”between the authors or other endorsers of said documents and the userperforming the search. This significantly increases the value of thedocuments retrieved, since the trust level of the source of thedocuments would be higher.

For example, if a requesting user searches for “books” and the reviewsearch engine 38 finds 25 book providers (e.g. subjects who providebooks), the results would be sorted based on a metric at least partiallyrelated to the “social distance” of the reviews that are written foreach of the 25 book providers. Therefore, if a close friend of therequesting user had recently experienced a given book provider andwritten a review, that book provider would be listed first, and therequesting user would be able to read his or her close friend's reviewon that book provider as part of the search result.

An additional feature of this invention is the overlay of a categorysearch within the system 10. For example, if a requesting user islooking for “Chinese Restaurants in Mountain View, Calif.,” the resultswould be retrieved and sorted based on a metric at least partially basedon the “social distance” of the user-authors of the reviews written foreach of the restaurants that fit the category criteria.

An additional implementation and embodiment of the invention is anoverlay for RSS feeds and blogs, where the links would be sorted basedpartly on the “social distance.”

One of the most formidable challenges in collecting reviews is the mereact of motivating customers and system users to write reviews. The mostopportune moment for a customer to write a review is within a few daysafter the sale is completed, the product is first used, or theoccurrence of some other substantial experience with the subject thatempowers the customer to write a review. Depending on the nature of theproduct or service and how it was purchased, many different collectionmethods are appropriate.

An exemplary method 122 of collecting reviews is shown in FIG. 7. Afterstarting, step 124 is enabled where the subject-owner first requeststhat the review-provider create a finite set of locator codes, eachcontaining a unique locator code comprising of a set of alphanumericcharacters, and perhaps partially describing a future transaction (theminimum description would simply include the identity of the subject).Upon request in step 126, the review-provider generates the locatorcodes by creating random but unique alphanumeric sequences, creates adatabase record, and delivers the locator codes to the subject-owner, ineither print form or in electronic form. The print form is useful forbrick and mortar merchants, whereas the electronic form is useful foronline merchants, but the two are interchangeable. The system andreview-provider allow the subject-owner to amend the locator record onlybetween the period of time that a given locator code is created and whenit is used or expended by a customer in step 128. This allows thesubject-owner to add transaction information to the locator record uponissuing the locator code to a customer in step 130.

Once a customer obtains a locator code from the subject-owner, thecustomer goes to the review-provider website and types in the locatorcode in step 132. Optionally, the subject-owner can deliver the locatorcode electronically, such as contained within a URL. Assuming that thelocator code is contained in the review-provider's database, the locatorcode causes the database to retrieve the identity of the subject, anytransaction-level information including the customer's name, and anyadditional instructions in step 134. Based on the information retrieved,the customer is presented with forms that allow the authoring of areview in step 136. Using the additional instructions, it is possible toask the customer to write additional reviews on specific aspects of thetransaction, to ask the customer to register to become a registered userof the review-provider system, to ask the customer to create a socialnetwork within the review-provider system, to grant coupons or otherincentives to the customer as a reward for completing a review or othertasks as specified in the instructions, and any other instruction. Thefields in the locator record containing the transaction-levelinformation and the additional instructions can be implemented in manyways, but a convenient way is to use XML or any other data format thatcan store metadata.

FIG. 8 shows an exemplary locator record 138 that would be used in thepresent system as shown in FIG. 3. The locator record contains a locatorcode 140, a subject ID 142 corresponding to a subject, an identifier144, and additional instructions 146. Additional locator codes 148 arealso stored that may reference additional subjects or locator recordsfor example. Each locator code within the locator database 78 allowsquick access to the appropriate databases stored within the system 10.This allows for real-time processing of information by the system 10 andreviews to be accepted from and provided to the customer.

One variation of the method of FIG. 7 would be for brick and mortarsubject-owners who perform most of their transactions without the use ofthe Internet, to create paper cards, each card containing a uniquelocator code (printed by the review-provider or the subject-owner) andissue such cards to each customer with every purchase or transaction.The card could contain simple instructions for the customer to visit thereview-provider's website and submit the locator code. After thecustomer submits the locator code, she would be presented with theelectronic forms necessary to complete the requested review. Under thisbasic system, it would not be possible to include transaction-levelinformation such as the customer's name or what the customer purchased,unless the customer submitted that information as part of the review.

Another embodiment of the above system and methods would be to includethe locator code on the cash register receipt of every purchase. Whilethis requires tighter initial integration between the subject-owner'spoint of sale system and the review-provider, once the integration workis complete the system becomes truly seamless for the subject-owner, andthe inclusion of transaction-level information and customized additionalinstructions into the locator record can optionally be automated.

Another exemplary use of the above embodiments that is possible forbrick and mortar subject-owners would be for the subject-owner totransmit names, email addresses, and any other transaction-levelinformation to the review-provider on a regular basis (such as hourly ordaily) of all transactions completed during the period. Thereview-provider would then generate a locator code, combine the locatorcode with the transaction information provided by the subject-owner, andgenerate and send an email directly to the customer, requesting areview, and containing the unique locator code.

An online subject-owner could use the embodiments of the invention totransmit the locator code electronically to customers, such as sendingan e-mail message to customers containing a unique URL which contains ahyperlink to the review-provider website and the locator code. After thecustomer clicks on the hyperlink, they would be redirected to thereview-provider website and presented with the electronic formsnecessary to complete the requested review.

Another exemplary use of the method of FIG. 7, appropriate fortransactions completed entirely online, would be for the subject-ownerto direct the customer's browser to the review-provider's website at theconclusion of a purchase. Part of the redirection would passtransaction-level information to the review-provider. Thereview-provider would then request the review from the customer, withoutthe need for a locator code at all.

Another example of the present system that would be appropriate formanufacturers of products is to include a card with a locator codeinside the actual product, perhaps along with the warranty/registrationprocedure (or perhaps even as part of such a procedure, which might betriggered as part of submitting the locator, as an additionalinstruction as described previously). In this variant, the inclusion ofthe card containing the locator code would be at the point ofmanufacturing the product, not necessarily at the point of sale.

The various exemplary methods presented here offer several advantagesthat become critical to increasing the likelihood that the customer willcomplete the review process. First, it minimizes data entry and lookupsthat need to be performed by the customer. All the customer must do isvisit a website, type in a locator code, and then follow the prompts.Second, because the nature of the transaction and subject are known (dueto entry of the locator code), only relevant questions are asked of thereviewer. Third, at the end of the review, the subject-owner canoptionally offer a reward to the customer for completing the review.Fourth, because many subject-owners would use this exact method and onlythe locator codes would vary, this would become a familiar usage patternfor customers, thereby reducing first-time anxiety in using the system.

Aside from increasing the likelihood of completing the review, thisprocess also offers the advantage that customers who submit reviews arealready pre-validated as a customer who has made a bona-fide purchasefrom that subject-owner. This eliminates the possibility of a fraudulentor false review, thereby increasing the overall faith that users willplace in the system 10. This feature can be strengthened by having thesubject-owner submit to the review-provider the name or other identifierof the customer to whom it issued a specific locator code, before thatcustomer writes the review, as part of the transaction-level informationin a given locator record. When that customer writes the review, thereview-provider can then verify that the customer's name matches thename that was provided (and explicitly authorized) by the subject-ownerto write the review. Matching can be done within the system 10 using anynumber of “fuzzy logic” techniques that match a customer's name or othernon-precise identifiers, including multiple such identifiers (an exampleof a non-precise identifier is a customer's name; whereas examples of aprecise identifier are their social security number or their emailaddress).

The present embodiments therefore allow the capability to addtransaction-level information to a given locator record. Thesubject-owner can specify the name, email address, telephone number, orany other identity information of the customer and is thereforeauthorized to complete the reviews and additional instructions. If acustomer matching the name as submitted by the subject-owner completesthe task, the reviews can be marked as “verified” by the review-providersystem 10, and this can be communicated to any requesting user. The namecan be matched using a soundex function (or similar fuzzy logic), andthe subject-owner can “appeal” an incorrect matching, which will then beapproved or disapproved manually by the staff of the review-provider.

The capability to add additional instructions to a given locator recordis also a feature of the present system 10. For example, if a customerbuys a digital camera from a given online vendor, the single locatorcode can trigger one review for the digital camera itself, anotherseparate review for the online vendor, and yet a third review for thecustomer service representative who assisted with the purchase of thecamera. Another instruction would be to request that the customerregister to become a registered user of the review-provider, and then tocreate a representation of that customer's social network. In theabsence of additional instructions provided by the subject-owner, thereview-provider may provide default additional instructions.

A locator record as shown in FIG. 8 can have an expiration date, afterwhich time the locator code cannot be used (if it has not been usedalready). The subject-owner can cause the review-provider to generate aset of locator-codes using the review-provider's website as an orderingkiosk.

The review-provider system 10 can meter the generation of locator codes,and can either limit the number of locator codes that can be generatedwithin a specific period of time or for a specific subject, and/or cancharge money for the generation of locator codes.

In the absence of a locator code, it is still possible for the system 10to collect reviews that a user wishes to contribute. These reviews couldbe marked as “unverified” or some other such appropriate symbol, meaningthat they were not solicited by the subject-owner and were contributedentirely voluntarily. This is the status quo in most review-providerstoday, and invites fraudulent negative reviews by competingsubject-owners, as well as fraudulent positive reviews written by thesubject-owners about themselves. To make this system 10 somewhat moreresistant to this type of attack, a credit card authorization can beoptionally used, wherein the user verifies his or her identity but doesnot incur an actual charge to the credit card (described later).

If, during the process that a user submits a review, the user fails tocomplete the registration or sign-in process, the review is stillretained and used, but anonymously. Furthermore, a persistent cookie isplaced in that user's browser with a unique identifier to that review.If the user ever visits the review-provider's website again and doessign in or register, any and all reviews that are anonymous but thatwere authored from that browser (and assuming the cookie is still inplace) are automatically assigned to that user as the user-author.

Once reviews have been written, it is desirable to be able to retrievethe reviews in several different ways, within one centralized area,usually the review-provider's website. The “search box” metaphor isused, except the search box is overloaded with additionalretrieval-oriented functionality that is invoked when the requestinguser formats the query in specific ways.

Various types of uses and interfaces are therefore provided by thepresent invention. The interfaces would be generally provided by adisplay 230 as detailed in FIG. 15. The interface may include a “searchbox” to allow a requesting user to interact with the system 10.Referring to the method of FIG. 6, if a requesting user types the word“diamonds,” the system would return subjects that either contain theword “diamonds” or are perhaps related in some way.

Another way to use a search box is for the requesting user to submit aunique identifier to the subject. There are a number of uniqueidentifiers available to merchants and service providers: Web site URLand phone number (with area code). For products, the UPC code is thebest available unique identifier (which may be automated by scanning theUPC). For individuals, the social-security number is one good uniqueidentifier, as is an email address. Furthermore, the review-provider canassign unique identifiers to subjects, including numbers or keywords. Itshould be apparent to those skilled in the art that there are manyunique identifiers available to subjects such as products, merchants,and individuals. Whenever a unique identifier is submitted, the systemautomatically retrieves reviews for that given subject.

Another embodiment of the system 10 regarding the use of a search box isto submit a location. This can be done manually (type in an address orlatitude/longitude), or can be done automatically with the assistance ofa GPS receiver. If the location submitted matches with a subject, thereview information is returned by the system. Location can be matched byaddress, or by coordinates. In the case of coordinates, the submittedcoordinates would be compared against each subject's coordinates alongwith a bounding function that describes all other possible coordinatesthat fall within the subject's physical location (or nearby), and if amatch is made, the review information is returned by the system.

A further exemplary way to use the search box is for the requesting userto submit a locator code. When a locator code is submitted, the systemautomatically recognizes the entry as a locator code, and proceeds tocollect the review from the requesting user following the instructionsin the locator record corresponding to the submitted locator code. Inaddition to providing reviews, the system 10 aggregates certainfunctions and information that significantly enhance the value of thereviews.

Referring again to FIG. 1, a variation of the embodiment of the system10 is the addition of editorial reviews (apart and separate from userreviews). By definition “editorial” reviews are provided by recognizedexperts in the given field (those skilled in the art will recognize thatan “expert” is a special type of user-author). An editorial reviewfunction allows the subject-owner to individually request any knownexpert to submit a review. This is accomplished by issuing a locatorcode to the expert. After the expert writes the review, thesubject-owner can move the review to a special area reserved for“editorial reviews.” The identity of the expert who writes such a reviewis disclosed to the extent that the expert permits, just as in normalreviews; however, because the subject-owner requested the review fromthat expert, the subject-owner may also request that the expert allowfull identity disclosure for that particular review. Any requesting userwho reads that review will assign trust commensurate with the fame andcredentials of the given expert.

Another value-added function is the addition of credentials andcertifications issued by third parties that is provided by thecredentials engine 44. For example, TRUSTe® (http://www.truste.org)offers certification of privacy practices; likewise, the Better BusinessBureau® (http://www.bbbonline.org) offers certification pertaining toethical business practices. There are also other third-partycertification agencies that pertain to specific domains; for example,the Jewelers Board of Trade™ (http://www.jewelersboard.com) that assignscredit ratings within the jewelry industry. The system 10 can thereforealso provide these certifications with the review information.

The rate and rank engine 42 provides the function of assigning anoverall rating number to each subject. This would allow requesting usersto quickly rank the subjects in a given category, if such a ranking weredesired. The overall rating number is computed individually for eachrequesting user, using metrics that include the “social distance” (asalready disclosed) between the requesting user and the aggregate of alluser-authors that have written reviews applicable to that subject. Othermetrics that may be used in conjunction with the “social distance”include the rating assigned by each user-author, how/whether theuser-author has been identity-authenticated, and how/whether theuser-author was pre-authorized by the subject-owner (by issuing alocator code).

The support modules 12 add further features to the system 10 by addingquestions and rating criteria for reviews that are known to fall withinknown categories. For example, if a user is asked to write a review fora diamond jeweler, appropriate questions and rating criteria that wouldaugment the value of the review include selection of rings, appropriatelighting in the showroom, convenient store hours, and otherdomain-specific questions and criteria. The system 10 includes acapability that allows subjects to be categorized; as such, when a userwrites a review or submits a locator code, the category is retrievedalong with the subject's other information, and based on the category,additional questions and rating criteria are retrieved and presented tothe user, for example in the review authoring form. An extension of thiscapability allows individual subject-owners to augment and add questionsand rating criteria to their own review authoring form, above and beyondany augmentation that might occur based on the category.

The present embodiments therefore offer and facilitate a high degree ofaesthetic (or other) customization by the subject-owner to the pages inwhich their reviews are contained. The review-provider could provide aspecial version of a site builder to a subject-owner that would allowthe creation and building of the pages, by adding components (forexample, “drag and drop” components) that are specific to thereview-provider. These components include actual reviews, credentials,logos, descriptions, directions, and similar. It is important toemphasize that the tool would only allow the subject-owner to controlthe placement and aesthetics of reviews and credentials, not actuallymodify the content of the reviews or credentials. Other components thatwould be useful for subject-owners that happen to be merchants includemethods for users to make contact with or send a request to thesubject-owner; furthermore, these requests could be seamlesslyintegrated to a CRM (Customer Relationship Management) functionalitythat could be provided as an additional tool or by a third party CRMvendor.

Once a review has been written about a given merchant, product, or othersubject, it is desirable that the review be disseminated as widely aspossible. To that end, the present invention includes a flexiblesyndication system that permits the review to be easily distributed toan unlimited number and variety of different websites, devices, andother media. Furthermore, whenever possible, the presentation of suchreviews should be customized to the media, website, or device being usedby the requesting user to view the reviews. This means that in additionto a “social distance” metric between the requesting user and eachreview weighing significantly into the sorting and presentation of thereviews that are chosen to be displayed for the requesting user, theaesthetic presentation of the reviews is customized to the syndicationchannel, both to the physical affordances offered by the channel (suchas a small display in a portable device), as well as the business needsgoverning the channel (such as the front page of the merchant's ownwebsite).

In addition to the numerous examples described above, FIG. 9 also showsan exemplary embodiment of the present invention. In this example, animplementation of a multi-format syndication system 150 involves threeseparate computing entities as shown in FIG. 9, the user's browser 152,the review-provider's server 154, and the third-party website 156. Steps1-6 indicate flows of information or actions within this system 150. InFIG. 9, a requesting user with an Internet browser such as NetscapeNavigator® or Internet Explorer® visits a 3rd-party website (1, 2). The3rd party website delivers content as customary (3), but as part of itscontent it delivers a client-side script (such as JavaScript), frames,or any other command or technique that will initiate contact between therequesting user's browser 152 and 154 the review-provider's server (4).The transmission that occurs in (4) includes, if available from apreviously stored persistent or semi-persistent cookie in the requestinguser's browser or by other client-side means, the requesting user'sunique identity. Furthermore, part of the transmission in (4) includes arequest for specific reviews or category of reviews, based on thecontent that was sent to the browser by the 3rd-party website. Thereview-provider's server 154 retrieves the reviews from its database,computes a “social distance” between the requesting user and eachreview's user-author, and then returns the list of reviews, sorted andpresented at least in part by the “social distance” (5). The reviewcontent is merged with the content at 152 the requesting user's browser(6), and the requesting user perceives that all the content is comingfrom the 3rd-party website 156. However, the content of the reviews iscustomized for that requesting user, and shows the most relevant reviewsfirst. If a different requesting user visits the 3rd-party website 156at the same time, the content served by the review-provider's server 154will be customized to that different requesting user. Of course, if arequesting user is not known to the review-provider's server, thecontent is presented in a default manner that does not include any“social distance” metric.

The third-party website 156 might consist of (perhaps competing) reviewproviders, information websites, the subject-owner's own website (suchas a merchant), or any other website. This same technique can beaccomplished in many different ways than shown above. The third-partywebsite 156 may communicate directly with the service-provider's server,and retrieve information that would then be passed through thethird-party website to the requesting user, therefore obviating the needfor a connection directly between the requesting user and thereview-provider's server (such connection is shown in dashes in FIG. 10to indicate that it is optional).

FIG. 10 contains another diagram 158 of the possible flow of informationthat could be used to implement this invention. This system contains therequesting user's browser 160, the review-provider's server 162, and thethird-party's website server 164. Furthermore, there are a number ofadditional transmission and presentation methods such as RSS, webservices, frames, client-side scripts, browser toolbars, etc., thatshould all be considered equivalent and inter-replaceable for purposesof this invention. Furthermore, a review-provider's server 162 is notrequired if all of the review data is contained in the 3rd-party websiteserver 164. Likewise, a 3rd party website 164 is not required if all ofthe content and review data is being served by the review-provider'sserver 162. Lastly, the requesting user browser 160 can be generalizedto any client software running on any device capable of being connectedto a digital network (such as a cellular phone or PDA).

In one implementation, the requesting user visits the review-provider'swebsite 162 and requests reviews for one specific subject (merchant,product, etc. ), for a given category of subjects, for a given location,for a given keyword combination, or any other criteria of similarnature. The reviews that are relevant to the requesting user's requestare selected from a database, and the presentation is sorted by a metricthat includes “social distance.”

In another implementation, the 3rd-party website 164 is thesubject-owner's own website, such as a merchant that wishes to displayits reviews to all requesting users that visit the merchant's website164. It would be feasible and highly desirable to include reviewsdirectly on the “home page” of the merchant's website 164, and to havethose reviews sorted and presented at least partially by “socialdistance.” The net result would be that if requesting user A visits themerchant's website 164, they would automatically be presented with thereviews written by requesting user A's friends, friends of friends,etc., in sorted order by a metric that includes “social distance.”

Another application of the multi-format syndication system is foradvertising. Whenever a subject-owner wishes to advertise his or herproducts and services, part of the advertising could contain the titleand author of a small subset of reviews, presented and sorted by ametric that includes “social distance.” Referring back to FIGS. 9-10,the “3rd party website” in this case would be an advertising provider'swebsite 164 such as Yahoo.com™ or About.com®.

The net result is that every advertisement would be directly targeted atthe requesting user who is viewing such advertisement, presenting thatrequesting user's friends' reviews alongside the subject-owner's logo orother promotional message. An example of a promotional message 166provided by the present system is shown in FIG. 11. In this example,friends Linda Jones and Tom O'Reilly have stored reviews relating to DoeJewelers, and these reviews have been automatically provided by thesystem. This promotional message 166 would be displayed on a requestinguser's computer screen as described with reference to FIG. 15 forexample.

Another exemplary system 168 is shown in FIG. 12. System 168 containsthe user's browser 170, the review-provider's server 172, and anadvertising website server 174. In system 168 the review-provider 172also serves the advertisement in this case, there is only communicationbetween the requesting user browser 170 and the review-provider 172 forthe advertisement customized for the requesting user as shown in FIG.12. This has the benefit of avoiding possible network delays. This typeof application can be extended to all sorts of advertising where therequesting user's user ID can be made available to the review-provider'sserver 172, including “pay-per-click” advertising, banneradvertisements, classifieds, auctions, etc. The multi-format syndicationsystem 168 can also be used in “offline” applications where therequesting user's User ID can be made available; for example, intelevision advertisements provided by addressable cable or satellitesystems, the advertisement could include a blank area where reviewssorted by a metric that includes “social-distance” can be displayedindividually to requesting users.

A slight variant from the advertising system 168 described above is onein which the advertising is replaced by a “compliance seal” provided bythe review-provider. As shown in FIG. 13, information 176 provided on arequesting user's browser by the system includes a sample seal 178 and awebsite link 180. The “seal” 178 can be displayed on any website, butwould most likely be displayed on the subject-owner's website. The seal178 would provide to the requesting user with information about thatsubject that is stored by the review-provider. Also, the contents of theseal could vary based on the “social distance” between the requestinguser and the aggregate of user-authors of reviews that pertain to thegiven subject and include a message from a friend. This information 176would be displayed on a requesting user's computer screen as describedwith reference to FIG. 15 for example.

Another application of the multi-format syndication system as shown inFIG. 2 is for a location-enabled device such as a cellular phone, PDA,or vehicle navigation console. When a requesting user is traveling in agiven neighborhood or is physically standing inside a particular store,the location of the requesting user plus the requesting user's id can beused by the review-provider's server to provide location and“social-distance” to specific reviews. In this embodiment, thelocation-enabled device is represented by the requesting user's browser152.

Another application and embodiment of the multi-format syndicationsystem 52 is for in-store displays. When a requesting user enters astore, the in-store display senses the requesting user's identity andtransmits it to the review-provider's server, which then returns reviewssorted by “social distance.” The in-store display then displays thereviews for the benefit of the requesting user. In this embodiment, thein-store display is represented by the 3rd-party website 156.

Another embodiment and variation of the multi-format syndication system52 is for displays in general. Examples include billboards and othersorts of smart advertising that automatically tailor the message basedon the requesting users who are walking by. In this exemplary embodimentfor example, a requesting user may walk through an airport and theadvertisements briefly contain pictures and/or messages from hisfriends, telling the requesting user to shop at certain merchants. Thepictures would change based on the requesting users who are walking by(to their friends). The identity of the requesting users would be sensedin any number of ways, including facial recognition, by alocation-enabled device being carried by the requesting users thattransmits the requesting user's location to a network that is thenaccessed by the displays, or by a peer-to-peer connection (such asBluetooth or WiFi) between a requesting user's personal device and thedisplays. In this embodiment, the displays in general are represented bythe 3rd-party website 156 and the device being carried by the requestinguser is represented by the requesting user's browser 152.

Another application of the multi-format syndication system is formessage forums, instant-messenger buddy lists, dating/singles matchingnetworks, or any other application that enables interaction with otherpeople. The application hosted on the 3rd-party website 164 transmitsthe requesting user's identity to the review-provider's server 162,which in turn returns “social-distance” enabled review information forthe requesting user accessing the third-party website from therequesting user's browser 160. This information is seamlessly integratedinto the message forum, buddy list, matching network, or any other suchapplication.

One element that is important to merchants, manufacturers, persons, orany other subject-owner for which a collection of reviews exists, is theability to “filter” reviews received. The filtering mechanism of theabove systems allows the subject-owner to apply filters at least 1)specific to the syndication channel (i.e. reviews that appear on thesubject-owner's home page, vs. reviews that appear on advertisements,vs. reviews that appear on the review-provider's website, vs. reviewsthat appear on third-party website #1, vs. reviews that appear onthird-party website #2, etc. ), 2) specific to how the review wassubmitted (i.e. by use of a locator code, vs. completely unsolicited),3) specific to the user-author of such review (i.e. specific user-authorvs. certain standing vs. verified vs. anonymous), 4) specific reviewsthat the subject-owner chooses to withhold from viewing by the public,and 5) any number of other filters that would be obvious to thoseskilled in the art. The filtering mechanism would allow thesubject-owner of the reviews to withhold publication of given reviews.It would never allow subject-owners to modify the contents of anyreview. In order to achieve full transparency despite the presence ofsubject-owner controlled filtering, the review-provider can inform allrequesting users of any set of reviews whether or not the filteringoption (and which one) is being utilized by the subject-owner. Thisleaves the choice up to the subject-owner, who must decide to eitherfilter reviews (but readers will know that the subject-owner isfiltering) or confirm to requesting users that all reviews are beingshown unfiltered (but risk a handful of inevitable negative reviews).

Other features of the present embodiments are the ability to allowsubject-owners that have little technical knowledge to 1) easilyintegrate/deliver reviews from the review-provider to thesubject-owner's own websites, advertisements, third-party websites,in-store displays, and even in casual conversation or a casual e-mail,2) control the filtering of reviews (if they choose to apply filters),3) control and access all of their billing information, and 4) manageany other issues related to their use of the review-provider system. Thereview-provider system 10 provides each subject-owner with a privatearea within the review-provider website from which subject-owners mayperform these functions with ease.

Another desirable feature of this system 10 is the ability for thereview-provider to meter or limit access to syndicated reviewinformation on a per-channel basis. This is desirable because widespreadsyndication will consume bandwidth and other resources from thereview-provider. The system 10 can meter and limit access based on each“hit” or request that is made for the reviews from a given subject, foreach “hit” or request that is made for a subset of the reviews aspertaining to serving advertisement or a seal program, for each “hit” orrequest that is made for portable devices, for displays (in-store orotherwise), or for any other request made to syndicate reviewinformation in any way to a third party website 164. The meteringinformation can be used to limit access when the resource allocation isdepleted, or to generate billable charges to the subject-owner or to anyother third party based on the amount of use of the syndication system.

The success of any review system ultimately depends on the amount oftrust that the general public chooses to place upon any such system. Inthis case, “trust” is the composite of 1) that the general publicbelieves that private information submitted to the review-provider willnot be handled, used, or disclosed in any improper way, and 2) that thereviews contained in the review system are largely legitimate, asopposed to being fraudulently written by sellers or their agents, aboutthemselves or about their competition.

One way to prove the legitimacy of reviews of the present embodiments isto disclose the full name of the user-authors to the public; however,this proves to be impossible if one is to respect the privacy of theuser-authors. On the other extreme, privacy is ensured if all reviewsare submitted and published anonymously; however, this decreases theperceived legitimacy of the reviews. The present embodiments of thesystem 10 provide an optimal balance.

Privacy engine 46 protects the privacy of user-authors within thepresent system 10 while proving the legitimacy of the reviews byintentionally diminishing the personal information about the user-authorthat is disclosed to the public to the point that it can be recognizedas a legitimate user-author, but in such a way that the informationcannot be used to contact or completely attribute the review to thatuser-author. For example, instead of publishing the user-author's fullname and contact information, the review-provider can choose to publishthe user-author's first name only, or first name plus last initial only.And instead of publishing an email address or other direct contactinformation, the review provider can publish the city and state in whichthe user-author resides. This makes contact with the user-authorimpossible, yet provides enough information to suggest to a potentialrequesting user that the review is legitimate.

Another variation of the present system 10 is to require the user-authorof a review to provide proof of ownership over the email address theuser-author submitted to the review-provider. This technique is wellknown, and involves sending a short email to the user-author, containingan authorization code or authorization link that the user-author mustsubmit back to the review-provider to prove receipt of the email, andtherefore control over that email address. This technique does not provethe identity of the user-author; it only proves that a given user-authorhas access to a given email address. However, this technique can beeffective in deterring the authorship of a large number of fraudulentreviews by one user-author, as it would require procuring a differentemail account for each fraudulent review, or else be subject to veryeasy detection by the review-provider, by simply counting the number ofreviews originating from a single authenticated email address andauditing accounts that author an excessive number of reviews.

Another variation of a method of authenticating authorship is to ask theuser-author to submit a credit card number. A credit card number can beused to verify the credit card holder's first and last name, andphysical mailing address, without incurring any charges to the creditcard holder. Though this method is very effective, it is also veryinvasive (and therefore impractical), as it requires the user-author tosubmit sensitive financial information to the review-provider.

When a user-author verifies her or his identity using any number ofmethods, all corresponding reviews would be marked accordingly with a“verified” icon or similar method. Likewise, when a review is writtenunder the authority of a subject-owner (by the use of a locator code),the review would be marked accordingly with an “authorized” icon orsimilar method. While this does not reveal the identity of theuser-author or the details of the transaction that occurred, it doescommunicate to requesting users that the identity verification andtransaction verification took place, therefore accruing additionallegitimacy to the review and the system.

Another method of authenticating authorship is to leverage the existenceof the requesting user's social network (as defined and describedpreviously in this disclosure) to provide definitive indication to arequesting user of the authenticity and legitimacy of a given review,and without breaching or compromising the privacy of the user-author ofthe review. This is accomplished by granting the user-author of a givenreview the option to disclose contact/authorship/relationshipinformation based on the “social distance” between him/herself, and therequesting user. Examples of allowed settings are 1) how much of thename to disclose (full name, first name+ last initial only, first nameonly, initials only, or none); 2) location of author (city/state, stateonly, country only, or none); 3) relationship (yes or no); 4) allowdirect contact (disclose e-mail address; allow anonymous sending ofmessages through review-provider; allow no contact). In addition to onesetting for each possible “social distance” between the user-author anda given requesting user, there is a privacy setting for requesting userswith infinite “social distance” (i.e. when there is no connection at allbetween the user-author and the requesting user). There can also beadditional privacy settings corresponding to specific categories orgroups of categories.

In addition to the above system of allowing increasing levels ofinformation to be disclosed about a user-author based on the “socialdistance” between the user-author and the requesting user, anotherindicator that can be disclosed with few privacy concerns is therelationship between the user-author and the requesting user. When auser submits his or her friends to the review-provider, the user alsostates the relationship of that friend to the user. For example, if auser decides to add her husband as a “friend” on the review-providersystem, the relationship would be set to “spouse.” Other possiblerelationships include “sibling,” “co-worker,” “family-member,” “son,”“daughter,” “mother,” “father,” “roommate,” “fiancee,”“girlfriend/boyfriend,” “business partner,” and many others. When thereis a direct relationship between a user-author and a requesting user,the user-author can be identified as “Your friend John Doe.” When therelationship is through multiple people, the user-author can beidentified as “Your friend John Doe's spouse Jane Doe's co-workerBradley Jones's friend, Laura Smith,” or similar based on the number ofusers between the user-author and requesting user. However, if therequesting user is several degrees away and the user-author, Laura Smithin this example, has decided to obscure her identity to such requestingusers, the relationship might be identified as “Your friend John Doe'sspouse Jane Doe's co-worker Bradley Jones's friend, Laura.” Similarly,if Bradley Jones has decided to obscure his identity, it might be “Yourfriend John Doe's spouse Jane Doe's co-worker Bradley's friend, Laura.”

In order to enable applications such as employee reference letters or“suggestion boxes,” it is desirable to allow subject-owners the optionto make reviews viewable to only a certain, bounded set of requestingusers. This system includes two ways of addressing this requirement.First, the subject-owner can assign a “PIN code” (or password or other“secret”) to the base of reviews regarding a subject, which anyrequesting user must submit in order to gain access. The subject-ownerwould then selectively disclose the PIN code to the bounded set ofrequesting users to which she desires to grant access to the reviews.The second method comprises of a list of unique identifiers,representing requesting users who are authorized to read the set ofreviews. The list is maintained by the subject-owner and can only beamended by the subject-owner (or persons authorized by thesubject-owner).

The following description of FIGS. 14-15 is intended to provide anoverview of computer hardware and other operating components suitablefor performing the methods of the invention, but is not intended tolimit the many applicable environments as described above. Similarly,the computer hardware and other operating components may be suitable aspart of the systems of the invention described above. The invention canbe practiced with other computer system configurations, includinghand-held devices, multiprocessor systems, microprocessor-based orprogrammable consumer electronics, network PCs, minicomputers, mainframecomputers, and the like. The invention can also be practiced indistributed computing environments where tasks are performed by remoteprocessing devices that are linked through a communications network.

FIG. 14 shows several computer systems 182 that are coupled togetherthrough a network 184, such as the Internet. The term “Internet” as usedherein refers to a network of networks which uses certain protocols,such as the TCP/IP protocol, and possibly other protocols such as thehypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) for hypertext markup language (HTML)documents that make up the World Wide Web (web). The physicalconnections of the Internet and the protocols and communicationprocedures of the Internet are well known to those of skill in the art.

Access to the Internet 184 is typically provided by Internet serviceproviders (ISP), such as the ISPs 186 and 188. Users on client systems,such as client computer systems 194, 198, 202, and 206 obtain access tothe Internet through the Internet service providers, such as ISPs 186and 188. Access to the Internet allows users of the client computersystems to exchange information, receive and send e-mails, and viewdocuments, such as documents which have been prepared in the HTMLformat. These documents are often provided by web servers, such as webserver 190 which is considered to be “on” the Internet. Often these webservers are provided by the ISPs, such as ISP 186, although a computersystem can be set up and connected to the Internet without that systemalso being an ISP.

The web server 190 is typically at least one computer system whichoperates as a server computer system and is configured to operate withthe protocols of the World Wide Web and is coupled to the Internet.Optionally, the web server 190 can be part of an ISP which providesaccess to the Internet for client systems. The web server 190 is showncoupled to the server computer system 192 which itself is coupled to webcontent 218, which can be considered a form of a media database. Whiletwo computer systems 190 and 192 are shown in FIG. 14, the web serversystem 190 and the server computer system 192 can be one computer systemhaving different software components providing the web serverfunctionality and the server functionality provided by the servercomputer system 192 which will be described further below.

Client computer systems 194, 198, 202, and 206 can each, with theappropriate web browsing software, view HTML pages provided by the webserver 190. The ISP 186 provides Internet connectivity to the clientcomputer system 194 through the modem interface 196 which can beconsidered part of the client computer system 194. The client computersystem can be a personal computer system, a network computer, a Web TVsystem, a wireless PDA or cellular phone or automobile navigationconsole, or other such computer system.

Similarly, the ISP 188 provides Internet connectivity for client systems198, 202, and 206, although as shown in FIG. 14, the connections are notthe same for these three computer systems. Client computer system 198 iscoupled through a modem interface 200 while client computer systems 202and 206 are part of a LAN. While FIG. 14 shows the interfaces 196 and200 as generically as a “modem,” each of these interfaces can be ananalog modem, ISDN modem, cable modem, satellite transmission interface(e.g. “Direct PC”), urban wireless connectivity (e.g., cellulartelephony), peer-to-peer interface (e. g. 802. 11 and Bluetooth), orother interfaces for coupling a computer system to other computersystems.

Client computer systems 202 and 206 are coupled to a LAN 210 throughnetwork interfaces 204 and 208, which can be Ethernet network or othernetwork interfaces. The LAN 210 is also coupled to a gateway computersystem 220 which can provide firewall and other Internet relatedservices for the local area network. This gateway computer system 220 iscoupled to the ISP 188 to provide Internet connectivity to the clientcomputer systems 202 and 206. The gateway computer system 220 can be aconventional server computer system. Also, the web server system 190 canbe a conventional server computer system.

Alternatively, a server computer system 212 can be directly coupled tothe LAN 210 through a network interface 214 to provide files 216 andother services to the clients 202, 206, without the need to connect tothe Internet through the gateway system 220.

FIG. 15 shows one example of a conventional computer system 222 that canbe used as a client computer system, a server computer system, a webserver system, a client portable computer system (e.g. PDA or cellularphone or automobile navigation console), a component of a smartadvertising display as previously described, etc. The computer system222 contains a review engine 234 that may contain all the structures asdescribed with reference to FIGS. 1-3. Such a computer system 222 canalso be used to perform many of the functions of an Internet serviceprovider, such as ISP 186. The computer system 222 interfaces toexternal systems through the modem or network interface 226. It will beappreciated that the modem or network interface 226 can be considered asthe delivery channels 50 (as shown in FIG. 1) and to be part of thecomputer system 222. This interface 226 can be an analog modem, ISDNmodem, cable modem, token ring interface, satellite transmissioninterface (e.g. “Direct PC”), urban wireless connectivity (e.g.,cellular telephony), peer-to-peer interface (e.g., 802.11 andBluetooth), or other interfaces for coupling a computer system to othercomputer systems.

The computer system 222 includes a processor 224, which can be aconventional microprocessor such as an Intel Pentium microprocessor orMotorola Power PC microprocessor. Memory 232 is coupled to the processor224 by a bus 242. Memory 232 can be dynamic random access memory (DRAM)and can also include static RAM (SRAM). The bus 242 couples theprocessor 224 to the memory 232, also to review engine 234, to displaycontroller 228, and to the input/output (I/0) controller 238.

The interface display controller 228 controls in the conventional mannera display on a display device 230 which can be a cathode ray tube (CRT)or liquid crystal display (LCD). All necessary interfaces with thereview engine are stored and provided by the interface displaycontroller 228. The input/output devices 236 can include a keyboard,disk drives, printers, a scanner, and other input and output devices,including a mouse or other pointing device. The display controller 228and the I/0 controller 238 can be implemented with conventional wellknown technology. A digital image input device 240 can be a digitalcamera which is coupled to an I/O controller 238 in order to allowimages from the digital camera to be input into the computer system 222.

One of skill in the art will immediately recognize that the terms“machine readable medium” or “computer-readable medium” includes anytype of storage device that is accessible by the processor 224 and alsoencompasses a carrier wave that encodes a data signal.

The computer system 222 is one example of many possible computer systemswhich have different architectures. For example, personal computersbased on an Intel microprocessor often have multiple buses, one of whichcan be an input/output (I/0) bus for the peripherals and one thatdirectly connects the processor 224 and the memory 232 (often referredto as a memory bus). The buses are connected together through bridgecomponents that perform any necessary translation due to differing busprotocols.

Network computers are another type of computer system that can be usedwith the present invention. Network computers do not usually include ahard disk or other mass storage, and the executable programs are loadedfrom a network connection into the memory 232 for execution by theprocessor 224. A Web TV system, which is known in the art, is alsoconsidered to be a computer system according to the present invention,but it may lack some of the features shown in FIG. 14, such as certaininput or output devices. A typical computer system will usually includeat least a processor, memory, and a bus coupling the memory to theprocessor.

In addition, the computer system 222 is controlled by operating systemsoftware which includes a file management system, such as a diskoperating system, which is part of the operating system software. Oneexample of an operating system software with its associated filemanagement system software is the family of operating systems known asWindows® from Microsoft Corporation of Redmond, Wash., and theirassociated file management systems. Another example of an operatingsystem software with its associated file management system software isthe LINUX operating system and its associated file management system.The file management system is typically stored in the memory 232 andcauses the processor 224 to execute the various acts required by theoperating system to input and output data and to store data in memory,including interacting with the review engine 234.

Some portions of the detailed description are presented in terms ofalgorithms and symbolic representations of operations on data bitswithin a computer memory. These algorithmic descriptions andrepresentations are the means used by those skilled in the dataprocessing arts to most effectively convey the substance of their workto others skilled in the art. An algorithm is here, and generally,conceived to be a self-consistent sequence of operations leading to adesired result. The operations are those requiring physicalmanipulations of physical quantities. Usually, though not necessarily,these quantities take the form of electrical or magnetic signals capableof being stored, transferred, combined, compared, and otherwisemanipulated. It has proven convenient at times, principally for reasonsof common usage, to refer to these signals as bits, values, elements,symbols, characters, terms, numbers, or the like.

It should be borne in mind, however, that all of these and similar termsare to be associated with the appropriate physical quantities and aremerely convenient labels applied to these quantities. Unlessspecifically stated otherwise as apparent from the following discussion,it is appreciated that throughout the description, discussions utilizingterms such as “processing” or “computing” or “calculating” or“determining” or “displaying” or the like, refer to the action andprocesses of a computer system, or similar electronic computing device,that manipulates and transforms data represented as physical(electronic) quantities within the computer system's registers andmemories into other data similarly represented as physical quantitieswithin the computer system memories or registers or other suchinformation storage, transmission or display devices.

The present invention, in some embodiments, also relates to apparatusfor performing the operations herein. This apparatus may be speciallyconstructed for the required purposes, or it may comprise a generalpurpose computer selectively activated or reconfigured by a computerprogram stored in the computer. Such a computer program may be stored ina computer readable storage medium, such as, but is not limited to, anytype of disk including floppy disks, optical disks, CD-ROMs, andmagnetic-optical disks, read-only memories (ROMs), random accessmemories (RAMs), EPROMs, EEPROMs, magnetic or optical cards, or any typeof media suitable for storing electronic instructions, and each coupledto a computer system bus.

The algorithms and displays presented herein are not inherently relatedto any particular computer or other apparatus. Various general purposesystems may be used with programs in accordance with the teachingsherein, or it may prove convenient to construct more specializedapparatus to perform the required method steps. The required structurefor a variety of these systems will appear from the description below.In addition, the present invention is not described with reference toany particular programming language, and various embodiments may thus beimplemented using a variety of programming languages.

The systems described in FIGS. 14-15 are therefore capable of enablingthe methods described herein regarding the review engine and thefeatures provided to allow users to interface with the system. Oneskilled in the art will appreciate that although specific embodiments ofthe review system and methods have been described for purposes ofillustration, various modifications can be made without deviating fromthe scope or spirit of the present invention. Accordingly, the inventionis described by the appended claims.

1. A computer controlled method comprising: receiving a review requestfor a first reviewed subject to be provided to a requesting user;selecting one or more reviews of said first reviewed subject responsiveto said review request; computing one or more social distances betweenuser-authors of said one or more reviews and said requesting user; andsending the one or more reviews responsive to said review request forpresentation to said requesting user.
 2. The computer controlled methodas recited in claim 1, wherein said review request includes one or moreof a group consisting of a category selection, a keyword, a uniqueidentifier, a location, and a locator code.
 3. The computer controlledmethod as recited in claim 1, wherein computing further comprisesdetermining whether said user-author is a member of an aggregated group.4. The computer controlled method as recited in claim 1, wherein saidfirst reviewed subject is a first one of a plurality of reviewedsubjects and said review request enables selection of a second reviewedsubject.
 5. The computer controlled method as recited in claim 1,wherein computing further comprises ordering the one or more reviewsresponsive to the one or more social distances for presentation to saidrequesting user.
 6. A computer controlled method comprising: receiving areview request for a first reviewed subject to be provided to arequesting user; selecting one or more reviews of said first reviewedsubject responsive to said review request; computing one or more socialdistances between user-authors of said one or more reviews and saidrequesting user; and sending in response to said review request one ormore reviews which can be ordered responsive to said one or more socialdistances when presented to said requesting user.
 7. A computercontrolled method comprising: receiving a review request for a firstreviewed subject to be provided to a requesting user; selecting one ormore reviews of said first reviewed subject responsive to said reviewrequest; computing a first social distance between a user-author of afirst one of said one or more reviews and said requesting user; andsending said first one of said one or more reviews responsive to saidreview request for presentation to said requesting user, wherein saidfirst one of said one or more reviews is associated with a messagethread comprising one or more messages related to said first reviewedsubject, said message thread having a plurality of user-authors; andwherein computing further comprises computing a second social distancebetween said requesting user and said message thread, said second socialdistance responsive to said requesting user and said plurality ofuser-authors.
 8. The computer controlled method as recited in claim 1,further comprising formatting said one or more reviews.
 9. The computercontrolled method as recited in claim 1, further comprising: filteringinformation related to user-authors responsive to said one or moresocial distances between said user-authors and said requesting user; andwherein sending is also responsive to said filtered information.
 10. Thecomputer controlled method as recited in claim 9, wherein filtering addsa relationship responsive to said one or more social distances to saidfiltered information.
 11. The computer controlled method as recited inclaim 9, wherein selecting is also responsive to said one or more socialdistances.
 12. The computer controlled method as recited in claim 9,wherein filtering obscures a portion of said user-authors' identity. 13.An apparatus, comprising: a database of reviews containing user-authorinformation; and a review retrieval system that selects one or morereviews from said database of reviews responsive to a review request fora first reviewed subject, wherein said review retrieval systemcalculates one or more social distances between each user-author of saidone or more reviews and a requesting user making said review request andsends said one or more reviews ordered responsive to said one or moresocial distances for presentation to said requesting user.
 14. Theapparatus as recited in claim 13, wherein said review request includesone or more terms of a group consisting of a category selection, akeyword, a unique identifier, a location, and a locator code, andfurther wherein said database of reviews is searchable by said terms insaid review request.
 15. The apparatus as recited in claim 13, whereinsaid user-author information includes aggregated group information. 16.The apparatus as recited in claim 13, wherein said first reviewedsubject is a first one of a plurality of reviewed subjects and saidreview request enables selection of a second reviewed subject.
 17. Theapparatus as recited in claim 13, wherein said one or more reviews isassociated with a message thread comprising one or more messages relatedto said first reviewed subject, said message thread having a pluralityof user-authors, and further wherein said review retrieval systemprovides reviews based in part on a second social distance between saidrequesting user and said message thread, said second social distanceresponsive to said requesting user and said plurality of user-authors.18. The apparatus as recited in claim 13, wherein said review retrievalsystem formats said one or more reviews.
 19. The apparatus as recited inclaim 13, wherein said review retrieval system further generatesfiltering information related to said one or more social distancesbetween said requesting user and each user-author, and further whereinsaid review retrieval system provides reviews based in part on saidfiltering information.
 20. The apparatus as recited in claim 19, whereinsaid filtering information obscures a portion of said user-author'sidentity.
 21. An apparatus, comprising: means for storing reviewscontaining user-author information; means for receiving a review requestfor a first reviewed subject to be provided to a requesting user,wherein said review request includes one or more of a group consistingof a category selection, a keyword, a unique identifier, a location, anda locator code; means for selecting from said means for storing reviewsone or more reviews of said first reviewed subject responsive to saidreview request; means for computing one or more social distances betweenuser-authors of said one or more reviews and said requesting user; meansfor determining whether said a user-author is a member of an aggregatedgroup; means for ordering the one or more reviews responsive to the oneor more social distances for presentation to said requesting user; meansfor filtering information related to user-authors responsive to said oneor more social distances between said user-authors and said requestinguser, wherein means for sending is also responsive to said filteredinformation; means for formatting said one or more reviews; and meansfor sending the one or more reviews responsive to said review requestfor presentation to said requesting user.
 22. The apparatus as recitedin claim 21, wherein said first reviewed subject is a first one of aplurality of reviewed subjects, and said review request enablesselection of a second reviewed subject.
 23. An apparatus, comprising:means for storing reviews; means for receiving a review request for afirst reviewed subject to be provided to a requesting user; means forselecting from said means for storing reviews one or more reviews ofsaid first reviewed subject responsive to said review request; means forcomputing a first social distance between a user-author of a first oneof said one or more reviews and said requesting user; and means forsending said first one of said one or more reviews responsive to saidreview request for presentation to said requesting user, wherein saidfirst one of said one or more reviews is associated with a messagethread comprising one or more messages related to said first reviewedsubject, said message thread having a plurality of user-authors; andwherein means for computing further comprises means for computing asecond social distance between said requesting user and said messagethread, said second social distance responsive to said requesting userand said plurality of user-authors.